This is my first entry in the Film. Release. Repeat. Blogathon hosted by Hamlette's Soliloquy and yours truly.
Star Trek, as a franchise, has had it's ups and downs.
A brief history, for those three or four people out there who have never even heard of Star Trek. The first incarnation of Star Trek began with creator Gene Roddenberry pitching the idea around Hollywood for a science fiction series for adults. Previously science fiction had been in the realm of shows primarily aimed at kids (Captain Video, Space Patrol and Tom Corbett, Space Cadet). Roddenberry envisioned a series that, although it took place in space, would end up addressing social issues of the day. He struggled to get anybody to understand the concept until he just said "It's Wagon Train to the stars!"
The original Star Trek TV show, (affectionately referred to in these later days as Star Trek: TOS (The Original Series), had a following of devotees, but never really took off enough to keep it going, and thus lasted only 3 short seasons. But the fans refused to let it go.
So for a brief period there was an animated series, Star Trek: TAS (The Animated Series) to try to appease them, but that one never really took off, lasting only 2 seasons. (You could chalk that up to the fact that it was a cartoon and most of the fans were well into adulthood, but I don't think that really encapsulates why it was not a success...) So, the fans became even more ardent, starting sci-fi conventions solely dedicated to the series, and, coupled with the astounding attention from the original series then in syndication, it sparked Hollywood's interest.
Thus, beginning in 1979, a series of 6 movies that expanded on the original series were released. Some were great, some mediocre and one was a dud from the outset. The interest in Star Trek would eventually spawn several offshoots of the Star Trek universe, including the first follow up TV series, Star Trek: TNG (The Next Generation), which in turn would also spawn 4 theatrically released movies.
Following Star Trek: TNG would be several other series, none of which spawned a theatrical movie release, but were nonetheless good, or even great: Star Trek: DS9 (Deep Space Nine) which lasted 7 seasons,
Star Trek: VOY (Voyager), which also lasted 7 seasons,
and Star Trek: ENT (Enterprise), which lasted 4 seasons.
In addition, there have been numerous streaming series available if one had access to them. There have also been 3 movies featuring a new cast in the roles of the classic series characters. I refer to these as "reboots". As well, a recent 2025 new look film, Star Trek: Section 31.
At the time of this writing there have been 14 of them. Although my rating of them differs from the consensus in many cases, most everyone agrees that Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is the worst of the output. (Note: I consider it still too early to make the call on the recent Star Trek: Section 31, which currently occupies last place on a list of Star Trek movies on the Tomato-meter...)
So just for clarity, I will rate my personal opinion of the ranking of the Star Trek movies before delving into today's review:
(*Note: Contrary to the public opinion of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, which usually ranks it much higher, the in your face, environmental, "save the whales" message just turned me off, this despite the fact that I adore movies that feature time travel. So no apologies if your opinion differs...)
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989):
The beginning of the film is your standard fare for a Star Trek movie. A native of Nimbus III is digging holes on his land. Why? Who knows. All logic of this movie vanishes the moment the native sees a cloaked figure riding up to his position. The native is initially hostile and wary of this interloper, but it becomes immediately apparent that the newcomer has no hostile intentions against the native. As a matter of fact, the newcomer exhibits compassion and care for the native and asks him to "share his pain".And here is where the movie goes off track. It seems to have a new age feel to it. And just what the hell is a "new age philosophy" doing in a Star Trek move?
Anyway, this newcomer, name of Sybok (Laurence Luckinbill), is some sort of mystic visionary. He is also a Vulcan, and the later revelation, that Sybok is related to Spock is almost telegraphed from the very beginning. Sybok's intentions become clear. He has plans to invade the capitol city of Nimbus III. There, as the planet is a neutral site, three envoys, one a Terran, St. John Talbot (David Warner), one a Romulan Caithlyn Dar (Cynthia Gouw), and one a Klingon General Korrd (Charles Cooper) are meeting to negotiate a peace treaty.
Sybok's intentions are to take the three envoys hostage, thus inciting rescue operations. But Sybok's intentions are not to incite a war. Instead he desires to take command of a starship. And why, you might ask? He seeks out the mythical birthplace of life as we know it, known variously as Sha'ka'ree or Eden or any other religious mythical name. And he wants to meet "God". face-to-face. (So we went new age, which rejects Judeo-Christian myths, to actually striving to prove the existence of a Judeo-Christian mythos? Geez, Shatner, couldn't you get a grasp on what you wanted to say?)
Anyway, as usual, the only starship even remotely nearby enough to go on the rescue mission is of course the Enterprise. (OK, so we have to be used to this development. since it was the reason the Enterprise was sent to encounter the mysterious force headed to Earth in the first movie, and also to go check out the mysterious goings on with Project Genesis in Star Trek II.)
The problem with using the Enterprise is that it is in serious need of a shakedown. In case you didn't know the timeline, I'll give you a bit of background. In Star Trek III the crew of the Enterprise hijacked the ship to go rescue Spock, and in the process had demolished the ship. A new Enterprise was commissioned at the end of Star Trek IV. This is the one that Kirk and crew have to maneuver to rescue the hostages, and it is not entirely ready for the mission.
Meanwhile, a renegade Klingon captain has heard about the mission and decides on his own to chase down Kirk solely for the glory of defeating the vaunted legendary Captain. One wonders why the Klingons don't have their own rescue mission mounted to save their own envoy on Nimbus IIi, but given the Klingon predilection for honor in battle, perhaps they figured the Klingon ambassador deserves his fate. It is hinted at that General Korrd must have committed some grievous error to be in the "demoted" position of a lowly ambassador...
When Kirk and his crew arrive at Nimbus III, they find they don't even have the ambassadors as allies, since Sybok has managed to work his mumbo-jumbo to get them on his side. He also manages to convert many members of the Enterprise crew as allies, through his "sharing" of their pain and forcing them to face their fears. The only person who refuses to submit to Sybok's ministrations is Kirk himself, who insists that his fears and pain are what makes him Kirk, and his pains are important to him.
Still Sybok does manage to get the rest of the crew, including Spock, to at least let him have his way with the ship and they travel to the Great Barrier of the universe. No ship has ever crossed the Great Barrier and returned, so no one knows what is on the other side. But Sybok is certain he will not only find the mythical Sha'ka'ree, but will also encounter "God".
Of course the ship has to cross that Great Barrier and enter into the unknown, otherwise this whole movie would have been entirely pointless (notwithstanding that it is mostly pointless anyway...). Once beyond the Great Barrier, they do manage to encounter "God". But before you get the idea that it is a validation of the existence of a Supreme Being, this "God" turns out to be just a powerful entity whose power is somewhat limited to just the area where it resides. And apparently, there must be some greater power behind the scenes, because this "God" character is a prisoner on this planet.
He (it?) somehow managed to contact Sybok and maneuver the Vulcan in order to bring a starship into the vicinity so it could escape it's prison, and... do what? Wreak havoc over the entire universe? Kirk, being Kirk, asks the most obvious question... "What does God need with a starship?" This of course angers the being and it (he?) attempts to kill or at least punish Kirk for his impertinence.
Having lost it's way long before this point, the renegade Klingon shows up and attempts to destroy the Enterprise. He discovers that Kirk is not aboard the Enterprise, but is actually on the planet and thus aborts his attempt to destroy the Enterprise. Instead he turns his attention towards the planet, intending to take his prize defenseless. But eventually he saves Kirk rather than kill him. The reason for this developmental change is just as egregious as the rest of the movie, but the fact is that Kirk does not really win the day at the end, but is saved by a sworn enemy. Which is even more astounding by the fact that Shatner was renowned for his attempts to make Kirk the focal point of the Star Trek universe. (He would often steal lines that were originally intended for other characters...)
Harve Bennett, the producer of the film, is quoted as saying that Star Trek V "nearly killed the franchise". Besides the ridiculous plot, another thing that had a bad impact on the film was the subpar special effects team. Originally the production company was going to go with Industrial Light and Magic, the special effects company who had produced the effects for the previous three films. But ILM was involved in two other projects, Ghostbusters II and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, both of which used up much of the company's top talent, so the film had to seek other avenues.
The worst special effects, in my opinion, come when Kirk and company finally arrive at Sha'ka'ree and meet "God". The wizard encounter in The Wizard of Oz was loads better, and they didn't even know what CGI was back in 1939. Much of the rest of the space scenes seem to have been done on the fly rather than actually have been done in earnest to give the viewer some bang for his buck.
Star Trek V had high hopes upon it's release, despite the fact that it was competing with a whole raft of big budget movies, not only including the above mentioned Ghostbusters and Indiana Jones films, but also the first Tim Burton Batman film, the second Back to the Future film, the second Lethal Weapon film and a few gems that became bigger events for the year, Look Who's Talking and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. Ultimately the movie didn't even crack the top ten grossing films, making it the first of the franchise to not earn that honor. In addition it was also the lowest grossing film in the franchise.
Critics excoriated the film. Roger Ebert called it "pretty much of a mess - a movie that betrays all the signs of having gone into production at a point where the script doctoring should have begun in earnest." Probably the best (or worst) indication of how bad Star Trek V was is the fact that it was nominated for some Razzies, an award given out to the worst movies of the year. William Shatner "won" Worst Director and Worst Actor and the film won Worst Picture. To put that in perspective here are some of the competitors that year: Worst Picture: The Karate Kid Part III and Road House. Worst Director: John G. Avildsen for The Karate Kid Part III, Rowdy Harrington for Road House and Eddie Murphy for Harlem Nights. Worst Actor: Ralph Macchio for The Karate Kid Part III, Patrick Swayze for Road House ans (big surprise) Sylvester Stallone. ("Big surprise" because Stallone was almost a shoo-in to win a Razzie whenever he was nominated...) (And just a side note: Sorry, John Wilson, but I think Road House was pretty good.
Star Trek movies are almost always worth at least one viewing. It takes a pretty bad movie to make me have to actually have to work at finding the energy to watch it a second time. I can do most "bad" movies twice, standing on my head... I delayed watching this movie the second time, because it was such a bad experience 35 years ago. This is only my second time to watch it and it still was the same stinker I thought it was when I left the theater in 1989. Rarely do I recommend that you DON'T give a movie a shot, but if you haven't seen this one yet, take my advice... save your rental fee.
Until next time.
Quiggy
I like some of the tracking shots - at times, the cinematography is above average for a Star Trek film (very short times lol). And I like some of the costumes, such as the uniforms they wear when they beam down to the planet, which actually look functional. And I like David Warner in any movie.
ReplyDeleteBut that's it! So many of the plot points in this film already occurred in the original series, e.g. "God" is not really a god, a fanatic leading his followers to a Paradise that turns out to be anything but ...
I just remember the crushing disappointment when I saw it in the cinema when it came out. It also felt a LOT shorter than the other films, although it actually isn't.
I couldn't help but feel some of the space scenes seemed like they just were going through the motions creating them. But I will admit that, prior to the actual appearance of "God", the formation of that "temple" was pretty damn awesome. But overall, the film was a disappointment that, fortunately was remedied in the next film. Thx for reading.
DeleteHi Quiggy - great article on a movie I have not seen in a very long time...what a cast! Too bad it's not a better movie. LOVED your blogpost title, made me laugh. And I will now go down your comprehensive list of Star Trek movie rankings and rewatch them all.
ReplyDeleteHappy new year, and thanks for co-hosting this brilliant blogathon!
-Chris
Chris- I have had plans to finish a project I started last year to re-watch the Star Trek movies in order. I put it on hold back in December when I knew I was going to do the next movie in the sequence for this blogathon, but now that I have done that I am going to pick back up with Star Trek VI soon. Thx for reading.
Delete